So, Who’s Getting Fired for This? Accidentally texting war plans to a journalist is clear cause for dismissal.

Ok brothers, some of you on this board who are now advocating for Trump's impeachment for shocking behavior were all aboard the Trump train when it came to election time.

"He's better than Kamala," I believe was your mantra.

So, you're glad he was elected instead of Kamala and now wish he would be impeached and replaced? Come on. You knew what you were getting when you voted for him.

Are tariffs temporarily disruptive? Sure. You can at least argue that the disruption is more evenly shared and born. "Free trade" has been enormously more disruptive over a much longer period to much larger numbers of American citizens. Haven't seen much here about that.

I work in an industry that just this week has been in D.C., met with Lutnick, provided a letter to President Trump, etc. We've been massively impacted over decades as the US of A has swalled the myth of trading mfg for services, rising tides lifting all boats, and all that.

Sounds great in an econ book, a lecture hall, and soundbites. Yet when you've seen factories close and folks told to go get a service job (Biden's pipe fitters coding - how's that going?), it rings terribly hollow, and frankly incredibly selfish.

I'm grateful for political leadership that is flawed, deep-thinking, and mature and courageous enough to take action that is immediately painful but long-term helpful.

The Trade Policy We Need - The American Prospect

https://youtu.be/182ckTL2KBA?si=t5oNYyY0_AtLSDcr, especially 38:00 to 1:11:00

“deep-thinking, mature, and courageous” is hardly what comes to my mind when I think about Trump and his administration.

Projected this might be one of the responses, and understandably so. Yet after investing the time and effort to understand, it is certainly surprisingly true. Not in every respect. Fallen humanity is unfailingly uneven and speckled with blind spots on our best day and across our lives.

Understanding what is motivating the trade adjustment efforts leads to the accurate conclusion of deep-thinking, mature, and courageous.

JohnS,

The article you highlight in your post, states that Trump's tarif policy is incoherent. And that is probably putting it nicely. He touts most of his tarifs as a way to bring in more money and make the countries pay for their inbalance, all while using them as punitive measures to get the countries to capitulate on policy issues (i.e. reduce the flow of fentanyl, enhance immigrant restrictions....). First, countries don't pay for tarifs, it is the individual consumer. But somehow Trump doesn't understand that most basic of economic fundamentals. Second, you can't tout it as raising money, while at the same time trying to bend policy. Once the policy is bent the tarif goes away, so therefore it is not a long term strategy to raise money for the tax coffers.

His on again off again approach does nothing but create inflation, uncertainty and erosion of people's retirement accounts. No value for the US consumer, only value in increasing Trump's desire to use bullying to accomplish his desires.

His 25% tarif on the automobile industry makes absolutely no sense. He is living in some 1950's ideology that equates manufacturing being brought back to the US as some way to improve our economy. That train has left the station. At the end of last year, the US economy was very strong, and arguably the strongest in the world, by practically any measurable metric. Our economy has progressed beyond the need to manufacture every component. The automobile tarif will impact every single vehicle sold in the US, as not a single vehicle sold in the US is 100% domestically produced. His desire to get foreign manufacturers to shift manufacturing to the US makes no sense. It costs billions of dollars and more than 5 years to build that capabilty up. And as your article state, tarifs with policy changes can accomplish things. Trump is not instituting any policy alignment with the tarifs, just tariffs, which makes it essentially meaningless.

As your article states, it is incoherent and as we have already seen the economy is rapidly sinking with no conceived benefit of tarifs.

Incoherent <> incorrect. Coherent <> correct. All manner of FTAs and other trade measures have been sold with great coherence to the American worker, especially the glories of rising tides and the siren of increasing standards of living due to cheap goods. Admirably coherent; devastatingly wrong.

Tariffs do not cause inflation any more than raising the price of any good or service causes inflation. Increases in the money supply cause inflation by eroding one's aggregate purchasing power. Tariffs do not increase the money supply. If tariffs do cause inflation, 1880-1910 should have seen enormous inflation. In fact, there was on average slight deflation of 0.24% per year despite strong and unrelenting tariffs.

Additionally, parties from other countries often do pay for tariffs. They do so in the form of lowering their prices to absorb the tariff increase or being subsidized by their own nation's government. In the last two weeks, both have been discussed and/or offered in my industry. In a sourcing conversation it is as simple as "I understand your factory is in XYZ country. I can't pass on the tariff if I continue buying from you. If you would like to continue supply us, you need to figure out how to mitigate the impact of tariffs to our company." They either do that or we find other sources or redesign products. Strange that many folks (not saying you) think the road of capitalism only runs in one direction.

Of course none of it happens overnight. Most people understand that more than we give them credit for. The US didn't willfully lose our ability to manufacture and thus defend ourselves overnight. Rebuilding the capacity - which is essential to our national security - will absolutely take time. Hyundai's realizes it is neither cheap nor quick, but they're making a big move, BTW. And based on trade group feedback from D.C. this week, rules of origin (particularly murky and difficult to police for autos) are part of what is being looked at.

Enjoying the repartee. Thanks for engaging.

Tariffs do not cause inflation any more than raising the price of any good or service causes inflation.

Got it. Higher prices do not equal inflation. Brilliant deduction, Sherlock.

A quick survey of articles (from a variety of sources) suggest that the net effect of tariffs will raise prices, decrease productivity, and increase unemployment.

You seem to be doing two things. Focusing narrowly on your industry that you think will be advantaged by tariffs. The economy is more than one industry.

Secondly, you are whistling past the graveyard as I don't really see anyone seriously arguing that tariffs will be a net good to the US economy, let alone the long-term harms they will cause in foreign relations.

Don,

Thanks for the moniker of Sherlock! :)

Rather than narrowly focusing on my industry, I merely cite it as a somewhat more primary source (as opposed to media reports and "expert opinions"). My specific industry is far from alone in the devastation wrought by "free trade." In fact, tariffs will and are causing us short-term pain. But there is no way back to a strong US industrial base and middle class without some pain. That's where the maturity comes into play.

I can whistle pretty good, but don't remember doing so past any graveyards. Multiple serious people argue that tariffs are in fact good for the US economy. Watch/listen to the 38:00-1:11:00 of that podcast for an example. What we can observe from actual experience is that "free trade" as it has been practiced for the last several decades is not good for the US, economically and otherwise.

FWIW, the anti-tariff responses here are common. We've been cheerfully told for decades how good "free trade" is for the average American. Pity that reality has not conformed to the pitch.

Thanks for the comments.

I expected Trump to take a pessimistic line on Ukraine; I did not know he was going to kowtow to Putin. I expected Trump to want tariffs; I did not know he was going to pursue punitive protectionism rather than a revenue tariff. I expected Trump to crack down on illegal immigration; I did not expect him to ignore the rights of those about to be deported by transporting them (again, Declaration of Independene "transported beyond seas for pretended offenses") thousands of miles away from their friends and support structures, and to be denied the ready use of counsel.

Maybe I am dense, but I don't believe he campaigned on this. Things needed to change, yes, but not quite this way.